Sunday, January 31, 2010

One of my favorite crusader's for truth over at Media Culpa has finally convinced Macleans to correct their story about the "10,000,000 Finns who died under Stalin". Its taken months for them to do it, and they probably wouldn't have bothered if a Finnish magazine hadn't called them out. Here's the correction:

Yesterday, it was revealed that CBC has recently adopted a highly Draconian approach to protecting the copyright on its on-line news stories. They have decided to employ iCopyright, the American copyright bounty hunters used by Associated Press. iCopyright demands a monthly/annual fee for each CBC piece you quote on your site; you have to host the entire piece, not bits and pieces of it; you can't criticize the story's author, or the CBC, and so on.

Ridiculous stuff.

By nightfall, Canadian bloggers had already begun to strike back. The inevitable Facebook group opposing the move had sprung up, and people were already considering means of punishing CBC for, essentially, attempting to sell you the right to fair comment that you already possess. Probably the most interesting idea for a punitive response comes from Devin Johnston at Law Is Cool:

There is one thing that I will change as a result of CBC’s new iCopyright policy. From now on, whenever I link to CBC, I will use the the rel=”nofollow” construct. This attribute instructs search engines like Google not to index the link as part of its PageRank algorithm. Essentially, the links don’t help their destination sites to achieve higher rankings in search engines. I already use this construct when linking to sources such as the Conservative and Liberal parties (being a New Demcorat, I want to ensure that I’m not giving any advantage, however trivial, to my political opponents). From now on, CBC will not get the trivial benefit they enjoy in terms of search engine ranking when I link to them. This practice will continue until CBC adopts a more balanced and realistic approach to copyright.Other approaches under discussion are letters to MPs (CBC is after all taxpayer funded), letters to the CBC, or making a conscious effort to avoid CBC versions of whatever story you wish to right about.

If CBC wants to remove itself from the cultural conversation, let them.

PS. A very good walk-through of the new contract and its implications here.

PPS. Although iCopyright looks to be a bit of a toothless tiger. Look at the bottom of the G&M piece you've quoted. Hit the license button and see where it takes you. Has ANYONE ever been hassled by these guys...or for quoting AP, for that matter?

The Libs offer policy, the Tories talk couch surfin' in front of a hockey game:Four weeks to go and they don't even have a forum through which to fight back. No wonder they're dropping like a stone in the polls.

PS. Spelling jokes are off limits. It's Twitter. Its supposed to be stupid.

...which seems to be the legal consensus on the issue. It will also argue that if Hadjis really wanted to wanted to brand section s54.1 (the penalty provision) unconstitutional, he should have put a little more work into the analysis of it than is evident in his decision.

There are many reasons to be upset by the Harper Tories' shutting down parliament and fleeing away across the rooftops to avoid questions over the Afghan detainee and other issues. For one thing, it means emasculating the seat of Canadian federal democracy over a scandalette that, if probed thoroughly and completely, would almost certainly not amount to much: the Conservative government inherited a flawed prisoner transfer arrangement from their Liberal predecessors; they were too slow to correct its flaws, but did so eventually. End of story.

In other words, they have chosen to cut and run over a fairly trivial matter, which implies that they treat the institution of parliament as something to be violated casually.

There is also the matter of the offhand brutality with which they have been willing to abandon their own legislative agenda. I personally might not agree with bill C-15 (mandatory minimum sentencing) or their consumer safety laws(C-6), for example, but these were nevertheless the result of an enormous amount of work by people and interests who were invested in them very deeply. And all of this work has been tossed aside at the first sign of political turbulence.

So, not only does the Harper government not give a toss about Canada's democratic process, they don't care about their own policies. They seem to have become entirely opportunistic over their four years in power.

But there is something more basic driving Canadian anger over prorogation, I think. It has to do with Stephen Harper the man, ideological Conservatives like those that fill his government's back-benches, and their relationship to what used to be called The Work Ethic.

I mean, this is the Prime Minister who once that claimed Atlantic Canada was hampered by a "culture of defeat", bred by laziness and a continued dependence on government handouts. This is the Prime Minister who branded the whole nation beyond the borders of Alberta a "2nd tier socialist" country. And this is the Prime Minister whose party has always been more than happy to play the "Bums from Out East" tune for all its been worth, who have argued that their political opponents are a bunch of slackers who "don't understand what it means to meet a payroll", and so on and so forth.

Now this very same Prime Minister has--hey presto!--rewarded himself and his MPs two months extra vacation time. THAT, I believe, is what really grates with Canadians. It's what lies behind the signs proclaiming Get back to work! that appeared again and again at anti-prorogation rallies across the country last weekend.

And I see that Norman Spector is prattling on again about coups, and coalitions between Liberals, Socialists, and Separatists. Well, Mr. Spector, at least these people showed up on Monday, ready to do their job. Mr. Harper and his gang of Calgary Capitalists couldn't be arsed.

A stunt? Maybe, but a not a bad one when you think about it, though only available to those within driving distance of Ottawa. Hopefully Iggy appears with Ms. Love at his side to draw the contrast between paid Tory MPs who are sitting on their arses in California waiting for the Olympics to break their ennui and Lib candidates who are willing to volunteer for the good of the nation.

Saturday, January 23, 2010

So, I had dreamed that I would arrive at this thing and wind up alone, surrounded by un-waved placards and trying to explain to CBC why the event sucked ass so bad. Fortunately, that dream did not come to pass. For although at noon when I first cruised by the Yonge-Dundas Square there wasn’t much happening, by start time a pretty good crowd had gathered, despite the cold weather, and when the march finally kicked off demonstrators stretched from Dundas to Queen street, the road thick (like being on a very crowded sidewalk) with people the whole way. Totally non-scientifically, I would estimate the crowd as being in the high 100s, maybe touching a thousand, maybe a bit shy of that.

So good on the organizers; they sure beat my expectations.

There was a definite orange tint to the crowd. It looks as though our NDP brethren put the “machine” to work; lots of “Stand up to Harper” signs, and CUPE banners, for example. Good on them. There was also a small Green Party contingent, but no official or semi-official Liberal Party presence as far as I could tell (although see below).

And there wasn’t anything too awful in the way of “message creep”. For the most part the placards and chants and attitude were on point.

Just to catalogue the funny stuff:

There was an anti-tar sands banner with a clever, oil-black T-Rex painted on it. There was an international Bolshevik that wanted to abolish the monarchy. There was someone with a sign that had a skull painted on it, an inevitable 911 truther, a couple of black nationalists distributing speeches by Farrakhan across the street, and a guy handing out tickets to some kind of Israel Apartheid thing. No matter what you might think of this last guy’s message, though, he had a really impressive Mohawk-type creation with unshorn locks that fell to his shoulders. (As an aside, Why do all the weirdos have great hair?) There was a stage, and a strong NDP flavor to the speeches given there, as far as I could make out. Luckily, the sound system wasn’t terribly powerful and nobody could really hear their Socialist prattling. And oh yes the same three guys selling competing Marxist -Leninist papers that I saw at the Labour Day Parade were out again. I swear they’re the same three guys I saw on Yonge Street back in 1986 when I first moved to T.O.

And speaking of hair, I got within 10 feet of Gerard Kennedy himself, looking elegantly sexxxy in what I remember as being a dark duffle-coat type thingy. Now, personally, I think he should wear his hair longer. I know that Iggy is trying to get the Libs to project a more professional demeanor, but you don’t waste a head of hair like Gerard’s. His hair is 100% shock-and-awe, and if the Libs sent it on a cross country speaking tour in the run up to the next election they’d pick up two or three seats on that basis alone.

Anyway, I don’t think Mr. Kennedy got up on stage and spoke, but I may be wrong about that.

As for the march itself… it was a march. I don’t much like them as I get a bit dizzy in crowds, but on the upside we did have a piper (bag pipes, in full uniform, probably frozen stiff under that kilt), and many of the young college girls in the crowd looked quite hot, although it’s hard to be sure when they’re all wearing parkas. But the day was chill, so when the actual march ended the crowd dissipated fairly quickly (leaving behind several unappreciated gals making some very good bluesy/folky music on stage, unfortunately).

And I didn’t meet too many other bloggers. I hung with Joseph Uranowski of The Equivocator for most of the event, and saw Ricky of Queer Thoughts at a distance, I think, but didn’t get a chance to talk. Impolitical, buddy, where were you? I heard you was coming and looked everywhere. I was the guy in the dark-colored winter jacket with a hood.

Anyway, a successful protest. Looks like some impact through the media too. In the bar I am writing this post in, one of the regs just told a joke about politics being “prorogued”. So I am sure this story will be in the news after tomorrow, which is the important thing.

Friday, January 22, 2010

...I will hopefully see some people at the demonstration tomorrow. And for me, the real question to be resolved about Toronto's Prorogy Rally is...where and when does the beer drinking afterwards kick in?

Thursday, January 21, 2010

Yesterday, CC pointed out that Khurrum Awan's defamation suit against Ezra Levant appears to be proceeding. In addition, I have been told that Vigna v. Levant (Giacomo Vigna is or was a lawyer for the CHRC) should get underway in February. Keep cranking out them books, Ezra. You'll need the funds, and anyway I'm sure "Oiled Up" will sell in the high double-digits (which may, incidentally, be enough to make it a Canadian bestseller).

The new EKOS has Libs and Tories in a statistical tie. Interesting in that:

1) The weekly trend shows a gradual Tory decline beginning before the prorogation decision. Its easy to forget that they were riding a string of bad news in the month or so leading up to that decision.

2) The Libs are finally starting to benefit a little from that decline, rather than bouncing along the bottom at around 27%.

3) The polling dates are from Jan 13 to Jan 19, so Harper's relatively adequate response to the Haiti earthquake doesn't seem to have helped him much.

And, OT, this is clever. Liberals should at least learn how to feign non-arrogance, at least for short periods of time.

PPS. Could also be a prank. The original twitter feed is clearly his; someone unbeknownst to Ted might have signed him up for politwitter, and removed a strategic letter from his name. In which case politwitter should review is security features.

UPDATE: David Sands says the origonal Ted Morton twitter feed, and the politwitter stuff, are "not real", which I would assume means we are looking at a case of impersonation. Someone is going to have some legal troubles.

PPPS. Unless that "Satire" note at the end of the politwitter entry there is enough to get the satirist off the hook. I'm not sure the people responding to his "tweets" have figured that out, and he links to the actual Ted Morton website, which seems like a possible no no.

10 percenters touting the same tough on crime legislative package the Tories prorogued down the toilet are still appearing in mailboxes across the land. Because if you ever passed this stuff, you couldn't run on it.

Yesterday, we noted that The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is trying to pressure the opposition parties to appoint anti-gun registry MPs to the committee that will consider a bill (C-391) to kill the registry when Parliament resumes in March. They argue that, since a majority in the House passed the bill once, the committees that consider its further progress should reflect this fact. Today, the Winnipeg Free Press has picked up the story, and we learn the CTF position is also that of the Harper Torys.

More importantly, the Free Press has attempted to contact the opposition parties to ask if they are going to play along:

I sometimes get the impression that the LPoC brain trust, while paying lip-service to the registry for the benefit of hardcore Liberal supporters (who support it), would really like to see it die quietly in the night so as to be off the table as an election issue in rural Canada. Not responding to this kind of query only exacerbates that impression.

Whereas, I am convinced, fighting C-391 in committee and in the Senate can still kill it. What are the odds that Harper and Co. will go another year without proroguing again, thus resetting the clock on all of their legislation? Given their recent behavior, I would say those odds are pretty high.

(I am also about half-convinced that this is one of those pieces of legislation that the Tories don't really want to ever be signed into law. But that's another post)

This New Facebook group--Conservatives Calling for Stephen Harper to Step Down--is something I can really get behind. Its growing by leaps and bounds, which is to say there were 12 members at 7:30, and 13 members an hour later--an astonishing eight per cent increase!!!

When you go over there your supposed to be a Conservative. Remember to type with your knuckles.

PS. Now I've joined! At this rate, our numbers will double by Wednesday!!!

Sunday, January 17, 2010

LEAF (the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund) is a Canadian legal organization that performs legal research and intervenes in appellate and Supreme Court of Canada cases on women's issues They've offered their submission on the review of the CHRA's section 13 (hate speech laws), by the Parliamentary standing committee on justice and human rights, here. There's some good historical and legal background in the document, which otherwise takes positions that are not terribly surprising. For example, LEAF follows the legal consensus re the Hadjis decision--section 13 alone is safe; s54.1 in conjunction with 13 may be a problem.

They do make an additional argument that you don't see much, which is that Canada needs hate speech laws to live up to its international obligations:

Canada is a signatory to several relevant international conventions that require state parties to prohibit hate speech. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), ratified by Canada in 1976, provides in Article 20(2) that “any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.”33 Similarly, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, ratified by Canada in 1981, provides in Article 4 that “States Parties condemn all propaganda and all organizations which are based on ideas or theories of superiority of one race or group of persons of one colour or ethnic origin, or which attempt to justify or promote racial hatred and discrimination in any form, and undertake to adopt immediate and positive measures designed to eradicate all incitement to, or acts of, such discrimination.”34 In Keegstra, Chief Justice Dickson recognized these documents as reflective of “the international commitment to eradicate hate propaganda.”35 International law recognizes that measures against hate speech may take different forms.

Yes, claiming to not know who Tom Flanagan is marks her as an irredeemable lightweight, but she is really quite hot. And why can't there be a few bimbos among the CPoC himbos? After all, being stupid never got in the way of this guy's political career.

If you're wondering what Shelly's up to, she's as the 40th annual "frog follies" in St. Pierre-Jolys. You can see the lucky little frog in several of the pictures. If I lived in wherever the hell that was I'd probably vote for her. Multiple times.

Friday, January 15, 2010

The same URL that an hour ago linked to a story claiming Ed Stelmach and Co. would be giving Haiti sweet FA now links to a story claiming they'll toss in a whole $500,000, half as much as Newfoundland and Labrador. Those boys sure know damage control

As an aside, I'm interested in this name change thing. I have always been under the impression that if somebody changed the name of a Facebook group that I joined, I would be informed by Facebook and given the choice of opting out. Else, I might join a group called "I love fuzzy bunnies" and wind up being the member of a group called "I love Stalin" or some such thing. I know a couple of my readers had joined this group: did any of you receive notification of the name change?

And presumably any Parliamentary investigation into the detainee issue would be focused upon the behavior of the political players involved. If the Harper Government truly believes that malfeasance on the part of any of these players entails the guilt of our troops in Afghanistan, then let them be the ones to make that argument and pursue the consequences.

As to the behavior of Canada's military in this whole affair, it seems to have been in line with the high professionalism we expect of our soldiers. The detainee "problem" was raised within the ranks (and in our diplomatic core, and elsewhere) and our civilian leaders were informed. The outgoing Martin government did not act, and the incoming Harper government did not act quickly enough.

Again, if there's more to it than that, let Ezra and the gang lead the witch-hunt.

Furthermore, Ms. Taber does not even consider (as I did, same post) how inappropriate it is for a Prime Minister to go into a security meeting, to talk about bombs and violence and so forth, with a mug representing the Fab 4s early, soft-rock, folky period. "With The Beatles". Blech! They hadn't even invented the distorted guitar in 1963! If Al Qaeda saw that film clip and IDd the picture on that mug, they'd crap themselves laughing.

But No! Ms. Taber simply swallows the government line!

(Although, the fact that Harper spokesman Dimitri Soudas made a point of confirming the nature of this photo speaks volumes. Clearly this mug was a prop in a staged-exercise.)

Just a reminder, in light of this. DART's purpose is not necessarily to be there 20 minutes after the rubble settles. So not being there 20 minutes after the rubble settles does not count as some kind of failure. If somebody tells you otherwise, as the Tories have done in the past, they are inappropriately politicizing the disaster. This is what DART does.

Tuesday, January 12, 2010

Harper and co. are trying to convince people they're actually working during prorogation. They've released some "footage" of a "security meeting" held the other day. Here's how you can tell it was staged:1) No underlings (military, RCMP) in tow.2) No coffee in the coffee mugs (nor anywhere else in sight).3) Plus--and this is the clincher--if you look at a close up of Harper's coffee mug

...you realize that its thisYes, a "With the Beatles" coffee mug. "All my loving" and lame stuff like that. People, you can't talk War with anything less than a Led Zep mug, and really, this is best.

PS. The always observant Buckets notes:

Note also the family photo in the background. But where is this meeting taking place? Harper's office? Then the seating at his desk is wrong. A meeting room? Who has pictures of their family in a meeting room? And whose pictures of their family have themselves so prominently placed? No, again the choice of photo is all part of the staging -- to display Harper as a family man.

Not surprising, when you think of it. This is a region of the country that has long been derided by Western Conservatives (including Mr. Harper himself in an earlier incarnation) for being lazy no-goods, and now you've got a gov. straight outta Calgary that's awarded itself a three month vacation. That's gotta grate. Bums from out West, anyone?

Thursday, January 07, 2010

From the St. Albert Gazette, the shorter Conservative MP Brent Rathgeber: we've prorogued because, if international visitors should hear about the detainee controversy while they're over watching the Olympics, they would depart with negative feelings towards Canada. There's also this awesomely Orwellian line: “Democracy and Parliament are not being sidestepped — they are only being suspended.” By their thumbs, perhaps?

PS. Easier to read if you right click on image and open in new window.

Hello, Mr. Cook! You out there somewhere? Hallooo??? HALLLLOOOOOO???? I was wondering if you might do one of your cute "grass roots fury" cartoons now that the new EKOS poll has come out. If you are having trouble with the math drop me an e-mail and I will try to help you out. I also have an idea for the cartoon: I see a picture of Globe blogger with his head jammed up his ass.

Wednesday, January 06, 2010

They wouldn't be speaking out unless authorized by his tremendousness, and HE wouldn't be authorizing it if he thought there wasn't a problem.

Meanwhile, looks like Mr. Harper will be vacationing in Vegas.

PS. I am told the PM is allergic to metal, and the above fact is not evidence that he's nailing hookers on the side down on the Nevada strip. Fair enough. He presumably uses bone knives on his political enemies.

I'm not quite sure how this will work out. Lots of opportunity for a media gong-show to break out. And this

....on the issue of Afghan detainees, and whether the government was aware of the risk of their torture after being handed over by Canadian troops, it's expected that Liberals will be working with New Democrats and the Bloc Québécois to keep the conversation alive.

...is a bit fraught. For example, statements made in any ad hoc committee would not be subject to parliamentary privilege. That is, someone could get sued. Since the Tories have sent staffers to watch committee meetings they've boycotted, you can be sure they'll have someone on hand to monitoring the proceedings here.

"Since the Conservative government appears to be setting up an election for May or June, Lalonde may find a way to trade-back again in the order of precedence and prevent C-384 from ever being voted on" by this government, Schadenberg observed.

Monday, January 04, 2010

Rural Sandi noted this in the comments of my last post. Below is a shot from the 2009 United Way Hockey Challenge (back last January), from Dean Del Maestro's website. You can see it in a few pictures, but this one is clearest (see white arrow on guy far left): the Tories have stuck CPoC logos on the United Way team jerseys. Pretty damned brazen, and I wonder if its entirely kosher.

Harper Hŏ’lĭday (-dā, -dĭ) n., & v.i.1.n. month or multiple months of recreation when work remains outstanding, when no work is done; period of this, paid vacation, esp. annual paid vacation, eg. Although the renovation was not halfway done and already behind schedule, the carpenters took a Harper Holiday anyway and still expected to be paid.2.v.i. to avoid responsibility or accountability, eg. John had not studied enough so he Harper Holidayed his mid-term examinations.3.n. act of avoiding or undermining fundamental democratic institutions, eg. the Prime Minister saw his popularity declining and risked losing a confidence vote so he declared a Harper Holiday to avoid further investigations and accountability. [OE haarpr haligdae]

Saturday, January 02, 2010

He really is. Though as a taxpayer, its reassuring to know that he'll have plenty of time to post crap to his videoblog this winter. What's next? Maybe John Baird will take up macrame to while away the long hours.

Either way, back in the 38th parliament the Libs were batting .560. Furthermore, one of the bills passed was Bill C-38 - the Civil Marriage Act. Compare that to the bucket of chicken-feed this session represents.

Friday, January 01, 2010

With these documents on the public record, Mr. Harper could then cross the street to Rideau Hall to request a vote on Tuesday April12th,explaining to voters that Canada needs a single set of safe hands on the wheel (namely, his!) to deal with the next phase of the economic recovery through gradual expenditure restraint and no tax increases.The discrepancy is because Norm got the day wrong until someone in the comments told him April 12th was a Monday.

Poor calender reading skills aside, this

Waiting until the fall would also give Michael Ignatieff more time to recover from his disastrous 2009. On the other hand, dropping a quick writ in the spring — a page straight out of the Jean Chrétien playbook — would throw a spanner in the Liberals’ thinkers conference, planned for Montréal from March 26 to 28.... makes some sense. So I am rather hoping Iggy et al have some kind of policy "plan B" ready should this "thinkers conference" abruptly need to be called off. I have been told that they do, that's there's been stuff ready since the election threats back in September. We may soon find out.

...although I think a good portion of Harper's current "popularity" (under majority support in all polls) is predicated on his not being seen to act opportunistically, and that it will dissipate if he triggers an election. But, again, we may soon find out.